>>24117419
>why are the new Basel rules called 'endgame'. i get it's the last part, so why not just 'last part' or something less scary like that
ai:
Short answer: “endgame” is a piece of insider jargon that stuck, not a deliberate attempt to sound ominous—but it does carry extra connotations that “last phase” wouldn’t.
3. It signals “no more extensions, no more rewrites”
Calling it “endgame” is also a credibility signal.
After Basel III had already been delayed, softened, and reworked multiple times (2010 → 2017 → 2023+), regulators wanted to say:
“This is it. No Basel IV, no Basel III.5, no reopening the deal.”
“Endgame” implicitly means:
stop lobbying for fundamental changes
stop treating this as provisional
start building systems and capital now
“Last part” doesn’t carry that same enforcement vibe.
4. Why it sounds scary (especially to banks)
You’re not wrong about the tone.
Outside regulatory circles, “endgame” evokes:
final confrontation
existential stakes
zero-sum outcomes
That’s why banks dislike the label:
it sounds like regulators are declaring victory
it frames capital increases as unavoidable
it suggests resistance is futile
Some industry groups deliberately emphasize how “dramatic” the term sounds when criticizing the rules.
so it fully goes into effect in April and it's probably why metals are soaring?
Short answer: Yes — in a structural, balance-sheet sense, Basel III Endgame does make certain commodity shorts less attractive for banks.
A commodity short (especially via derivatives) typically:
increases balance-sheet usage
adds market risk capital
adds leverage exposure
That makes the return on equity of those shorts worse than pre-Basel III.